Thursday, May 10, 2012

They have been out now for over 24 hours, and in a word, blogwise, zilch.

Simon Turnill made the original FOI request for the emails. He was excitedly chronicling every step in the blogfuss based on reading meanings into comments of the Privacy Commissioner on what might be in the emails, made in the finding on his appeal.

So now they could actually read them and verify, right? Well, no. Simon Turnill has not posted them. Complete silence there. I posted a comment at WUWT - just one comment in response (we're all bedwetters).

My blog software lets me count how many people tuned in from other sites to link to the emails that I posted. From WUWT, just two. From Bishop Hill, where I also posted a notice and there was some discussion, there were four.

The Australian does have an article, which focusses on the "forced to release" angle. Very little about the outcome of their previous speculations. No mention of the main incident. And they haven't made the release accessible either.

Apparently the story is so dead that WUWT has yet another story about it being a dead story (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/11/death-threats-against-climate-scientists-story-deader-still/). I thought a dead story was one that people didn't write about, but septic-land is a funny place. I'd tell him this myself but I'm banned. I see (from that and his "troll bin" stuff) that AW is pretty well abandoning the pretence that "unlike the warmistsas we don't censor anyone".

“You were put on troll moderation YESTERDAY, not after I made this post, and you know this. Both you and Appell can’t seem to embrace humility, or to even admit you’ve been wrong, try it sometime. Until then, you get the slow lane.”

I agree with you that the ANU death threats turned out to be a ruse and I strongly disagree with Nick on this. But I respect his right to hold a contrary opinion, and his right to freedom of speech. I thought this is something skeptics all stand for? Moreover, Nick is exceptional among AGW defenders in that he is always respectful and polite.

In my mind, you do huge damage to your credibility by putting people like Nick on ‘moderation watch’ and announcing that here, and I urge you to take him off it again and offer him the apology he deserves.

One has to ask why anyone would carry a kangaroo culling licence on a planned attendance at a climate conference.If I had that morning passed the test I may still carry it. But I do not even carry my driving licence, marriage licence, dog licence, or TV licence. Why would I need to prove I can kill kangaroos legally at a climate conference!Interesting (but probably irrelevant) links referencing Coochey:http://www.ssaa.org.au/asj/asj-2001-v3-1.pdfhttp://www.ssaa.org.au/asj/asj-1999-v1-2.pdfhttp://www.mensrights.com.au/page13z2.htmhttp://onemansweb.org/men-s-business/men-women-and-violence/men-behaving-badly-2.htmlhttp://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3737400.html